Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026271
Title: Perception of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement of authors publishing reviews in nursing journals: A cross-sectional online survey
Authors: TAM WAI SAN WILSON 
Tang, A
Woo, B
Goh, SYS
Keywords: PRISMA
publication policy
quality of reporting
research reporting
systematic reviews
Issue Date: 1-Apr-2019
Publisher: BMJ
Citation: TAM WAI SAN WILSON, Tang, A, Woo, B, Goh, SYS (2019-04-01). Perception of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement of authors publishing reviews in nursing journals: A cross-sectional online survey. BMJ Open 9 (4) : e026271-. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026271
Abstract: © 2019 Author(s). Objective The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement has been developed as a guideline for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Despite the prevalent use of the PRISMA statement in medicine and nursing, no studies have examined authors' perception of it. The purpose of this study is to explore the perception of the PRISMA statement of authors who published reviews, meta-analyses, or both in nursing journals. Design Cross-sectional descriptive study. Methods An online survey was conducted among authors who published reviews, meta-analyses, or both in nursing journals between 2011 and 2017. The selected authors' email addresses were extracted from the PUBMED database. A questionnaire - with a 10-point Likert scale (1 - not important at all to 10 - very important) - was developed to elicit their responses regarding their perception of not only the PRISMA statement as a whole, but also the individual items therein. Results Invitations were sent to 1960 valid email addresses identified, with 230 responses (response rate: 11.7%) and 181 completed responses (completion rate: 9.2%). The average perceived importance of the PRISMA statement was 8.66 (SD=1.35), while the perceived importance for the individual items ranged from 7.74 to 9.32. Six items were rated significantly higher than the average rating, whereas one item was rated significantly lower. Conclusion Most respondents perceived the PRISMA statement as important. Items related to information sources, selection, search-flow presentation, summary of findings, limitations and interpretation were deemed more important while the registration was deemed less so.
Source Title: BMJ Open
URI: https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/156123
ISSN: 2044-6055,2044-6055
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026271
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications
Elements

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
Perception of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement of authors publishin.pdf268.94 kBAdobe PDF

OPEN

PublishedView/Download

Page view(s)

43
checked on Nov 14, 2019

Download(s)

1
checked on Nov 14, 2019

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.